Sunday, February 28, 2010

Hoodies, CCTV and 1984

Last night I was round a mate’s house, we watched a programme about ‘hoodies’.

It was quite strange in the way it tried to present itself as a serious piece of documentary making and by the end I was not sure if the programme was simply part of the hoody damning media bandwagon or not.

On reflection I think its producers did a good job trying to look at all the angles and unpicking the presenting problems below the hoody covered surface.

There were two points I found most interesting in the programme. The first was by a fashion guru who spoke about the 'blandness of youth'; the fact that youth has bought into the corporate machine so much that it is not cutting edge or reactionary as the rockers, mods and punks were, but rather were simply buying 'off the peg' sportswear provided by multi-nationals in every high street around the world. The hoody is not a statement unless it is simply a statement of mediocre conformity. This I liked!

NOTE: It is worth mentioning that I have bought a hoodie or two over the past few years thinking that they were a statment against the prejudice targeting those who are normally associated with wearing them. I even went so far as to wear a hoodie to the first council meeting I attended after being elected a Tory councillor in May 2008, but again that is another story!

The second was when Piers Morgan narrated that (further reiterating his point in an article in the Observer on Sunday 25 September 2005):

"We are CCTV-mad in this country. I discovered in the course of filming this programme that Britain has 20 per cent of the world's CCTV cameras. Yes, 20 per cent. There are more cameras in Basingstoke than in New York City, where they are banned from places like the subway on civil liberty grounds."

"The average Briton will be picked up by 300 cameras a day, creating a pervading sense of paranoia. Cameras don't mug or stab you, though. And there is no doubt that a lot of hoodies cause a lot of problems for those who have the misfortune to live around them."

I thought that I would check out the claim and stumbled upon the following article on BBC News. I found it interesting and think that everyone should be part of this debate, before its too late. Britain is 'surveillance society' Thursday, 2 November 2006, 15:40 GMT BBC SOURCE WEBSITE

Fears that the UK would "sleep-walk into a surveillance society" have become a reality, the government's information commissioner has said.

Richard Thomas, who said he raised concerns two years ago, spoke after research found people's actions were increasingly being monitored.

Researchers highlight "dataveillance", the use of credit card, mobile phone and loyalty card information, and CCTV.

Monitoring of work rates, travel and telecommunications is also rising.

There are up to 4.2m CCTV cameras in Britain - about one for every 14 people.

But surveillance ranges from US security agencies monitoring telecommunications traffic passing through Britain, to key stroke information used to gauge work rates and GPS information tracking company vehicles, the Report on the Surveillance Society says.

It predicts that by 2016 shoppers could be scanned as they enter stores, schools could bring in cards allowing parents to monitor what their children eat, and jobs may be refused to applicants who are seen as a health risk.

Produced by a group of academics called the Surveillance Studies Network, the report was presented to the 28th International Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners' Conference in London, hosted by the Information Commissioner's Office.

The office is an independent body established to promote access to official data and to protect personal details.

The report's co-writer Dr David Murakami-Wood told BBC News that, compared to other industrialised Western states, the UK was "the most surveilled country".

"We have more CCTV cameras and we have looser laws on privacy and data protection," he said.

"We really do have a society which is premised both on state secrecy and the state not giving up its supposed right to keep information under control while, at the same time, wanting to know as much as it can about us."

The report coincides with the publication by the human rights group Privacy International of figures that suggest Britain is the worst Western democracy at protecting individual privacy.

The two worst countries in the 36-nation survey are Malaysia and China, and Britain is one of the bottom five with "endemic surveillance".

Mr Thomas called for a debate about the risks if information gathered is wrong or falls into the wrong hands.

"We've got to say where do we want the lines to be drawn? How much do we want to have surveillance changing the nature of society in a democratic nation?" he told the BBC.

"We're not luddites, we're not technophobes, but we are saying not least don't forget the fundamental importance of data protection, which I'm responsible for.

"Sometimes it gets dismissed as something which is rather bureaucratic, it stops you sorting out your granny's electricity bills. People grumble about data protection, but boy is it important in this new age.

"When data protection puts those fundamental safeguards in place, we must make sure that some of these lines are not crossed."

'Balance needed'

The Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) said there needed to be a balance between sharing information responsibly and respecting the citizen's rights.

A spokesman said: "Massive social and technological advances have occurred in the last few decades and will continue in the years to come.

"We must rise to the challenges and seize the opportunities it provides for individual citizens and society as a whole."

Graham Gerrard from the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said there were safeguards against the abuse of surveillance by officers.

"The police use of surveillance is probably the most regulated of any group in society," he told the BBC.

"Richard Thomas was particularly concerned about unseen, uncontrolled or excessive surveillance. Well, any of the police surveillance that is unseen is in fact controlled and has to be proportionate otherwise it would never get authorised."